I am senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News. I write about energy and environment issues, frequently focusing on global warming. I have presented environmental analysis on CNN, CNN Headline News, CBS Evening News, MSNBC, Fox News Channel, and several national radio programs. My environmental analysis has been published in virtually every major newspaper in the United States. I studied atmospheric science and majored in government at Dartmouth College. I obtained my Juris Doctorate from Syracuse University.

Shock Poll: Meteorologists Are Global Warming Skeptics

A recent survey of American Meteorological Society members shows meteorologists are skeptical that humans are causing a global warming crisis. The survey confirms what many scientists have been reporting for years; the politically focused bureaucratic leadership of many science organizations is severely out of touch with the scientists themselves regarding global warming issues.

According to American Meteorological Society (AMS) data, 89% of AMS meteorologists believe global warming is happening, but only a minority (30%) is very worried about global warming.

This sharp contrast between the large majority of meteorologists who believe global warming is happening and the modest minority who are nevertheless very worried about it is consistent with other scientist surveys. This contrast exposes global warming alarmists who assert that 97% of the world’s scientists agree humans are causing a global warming crisis simply because these scientists believe global warming is occurring. However, as this and other scientist surveys show, believing that some warming is occurring is not the same as believing humans are causing a worrisome crisis.

Other questions solidified the meteorologists’ skepticism about humans creating a global warming crisis. For example, among those meteorologists who believe global warming is happening, only a modest majority (59%) believe humans are the primary cause. More importantly, only 38% of respondents who believe global warming is occurring say it will be very harmful during the next 100 years.

With substantially fewer than half of meteorologists very worried about global warming or expecting substantial harm during the next 100 years, one has to wonder why environmental activist groups are sowing the seeds of global warming panic. Does anyone really expect our economy to be powered 100 years from now by the same energy sources we use today? Why immediately, severely, and permanently punish our economy with costly global warming restrictions when technological advances and the free market will likely address any such global warming concerns much more efficiently, economically and effectively?

In another line of survey questions, 53% of respondents believe there is conflict among AMS members regarding the topic of global warming. Only 33% believe there is no conflict. Another 15% were not sure. These results provide strong refutation to the assertion that “the debate is over.”

Interestingly, only 26% of respondents said the conflict among AMS members is unproductive.

Overall, the survey of AMS scientists paints a very different picture than the official AMS Information Statement on Climate Change. Drafted by the AMS bureaucracy, the Information Statement leaves readers with the impression that AMS meteorologists have few doubts about humans creating a global warming crisis. The Information Statement indicates quite strongly that humans are the primary driver of global temperatures and the consequences are and will continue to be quite severe. Compare the bureaucracy’s Information Statement with the survey results of the AMS scientists themselves.

Scientists who have attended the Heartland Institute’s annual International Conference on Climate Change report the same disconnect throughout their various science organizations; only a minority of scientists believes humans are causing a global warming crisis, yet the non-scientist bureaucracies publish position statements that contradict what the scientists themselves believe. Few, if any, of these organizations actually poll their members before publishing a position statement. Within this context of few actual scientist surveys, the AMS survey results are very powerful.

In contrast to the AMS survey, where all respondents are AMS meteorologists, a majority have Ph.D.s and fully 80% have a Ph.D. or Masters Degree, position statements by organizational bureaucracies carry little scientific weight. For example, a position statement recently published by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and frequently cited as the “definitive” indication of scientific consensus on global warming was authored by a mere 23 persons. Of those 23 persons, only five had Ph.D.s in a field closely related to climate science, an equal number (5) were staffers for environmental activist groups, two were politicians, one was the EPA general counsel under the Clinton administration and 19 of the 23 had already spoken out on behalf of global warming alarmism prior to being chosen for the panel. Clearly the scientific weight of the NAS statement pales in comparison to the AMS meteorologist survey.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

When reading the above opinion piece, please keep in mind that it is just that, an opinion piece. moreover, keep in mind that Mr. taylor is a lawyer who is paid $81000 a year by a right-wing think tank to spind, distort and fabricate doubt about the theory of anthropogenic global warming. It is high time that Forbes stops providing a pltform for ideologues from which they can wifllfully try and misinform and mislead people.

Mr. Taylor is also making the amateur mistake of conflating weather and climate. Meteorologists deal primarily with the former, climate scientists primarily with the latter.

Nevertheless, the American meteorological Society, the Canadian meteorological and oceanographic society, the Royal meteorological society, inlcuding many other meteorological societies and acadamies around the world are very clear in that thate agree with the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and that continuing with business as usual is not only myopic but is going to be costly and have negtaive impacts not only ont he biosphere, but people too (especially the poor).

Mr. Taylor is also being disingenuous when he claims up front that meteorologists are skeptical that humans are causing a global warming crisis. That is a demonstrably false statement and should be retracted. Will Taylor or Forbes issue a correction?

Mr. Taylor’s transparent attempt to spin the survey’s results of course neglects to mention that only 8% of those surveyed are not concerned about AGW.

Taylor and Heartland have no credibility and should not be permitted to spew lies and information by Forbes. If they wish to do so on their own website, fine, but not here.

I am concerned about your assertion that I “should not be permitted to spew lies and information by Forbes.” Forgetting for a moment that you have not identified any particular lies, why do you so deeply fear open discussion and debate?

There’s nothing wrong with open discussion. There is a problem when people with no regard for factual information and no knowledge about a subject are given a prominent platform to speak about it. Forbes readers are not being well-served to be constantly exposed to your misinformation, and to be blunt, ignorance on the subject of climate science.

I am amused how global warming activists get so worked up about open discussion and debate. Closing your eyes, covering your ears, and pretending that anybody who disagrees with you MUST be ignorant or on the take betrays your closed-mindedness and circular logic.

You are continuing to projecy. I see from your empty rhetoric and repeatwed strawman arguemnts that you do not have answers to the critique directed at you :)

You are not ignorant b/c you diagree with me or the science academies and socities, but because you choose to disagree with elementary physics and because, as a paid spinmaster, it is your job to obfuscate and misprepresent the physics. That is willful ignorance.

There ytou going making strawman arguments again. Empty rhetoric on you part is not a substitute for a counter argument. That you have to do so just underscores the vacuity of your argument.

Your ignorance stems from the fact that you continue to rail against elementary physics and the fact that the preponderance of evidence from multiple independent sources that the climate sensitivity is near +3 C for doubling CO2.

And you are also projecting when you accuse others of being close minded– the irony of an employee of an ideological think tank (i.e., you working for Heartland) accusing others of being close minded is priceless.

However when the disagreeing view is put forward based on cherry-picked information, misrepresentation, not highlighting ALL the available data, not puting information into its broader context and then only engaging in ‘debate’ on forums such as Forbes where the majority of the readership will not know what they AREN’T being told by said debater, what conclusion should one draw about that person?

And when such a person, like yourself, who is engaged in frequently presenting misrepresented information, even when others have repeatedly called them on it, continues to do so, what other conclusion can one draw about their motives or abilities.

You might like to read through my later comment where I present all the actual results from the survey and what the actually mean, not just the cherry-picked snippets you quoted.

So, to your reaction to Dana’s comments about lies – let me quote the late great Robert Heinlein: “One of the most Artistic ways of Lying: Tell the Truth. But Not All Of It’.

When one selects only certain facts to present to an audience a misrepresented perspective of something, to create the impression that Black is White, that quite simply is lying. Lying by Omission.

There you go again, misrepresenting what I said and arguing against a straw man. No wonder the Heartland Institute hired you.

As I said, there is nothing wrong with an open discussion and debate. You’re free to comment on any blog that you like. The problem is that Forbes has given you this soapbox to preach from when you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about or even the miniscule amount of moral fiber it requires to accurately represent the documents or people you’re talking about.

Does Forbes let just anybody blog on their site, or only the ignorant and dishonest?